Follow the author of this article

Follow the topics within this article

Some of Britain’s most prestigious universities do not offer a high enough “quality and intensity of teaching” to demand students pay £9,000 a year, a leaked government document has revealed.

Notes for a Number 10 meeting caught on camera reveal ministers believe there is a “problem” that some universities are charging the highest tuition fees rate despite not proving their worth.

The private memo will lead to fears parents are getting ripped off by some Russell Group universities and lead to calls the government reveal which institutions they have concerns about.

The notes also throw into doubt David Cameron’s pledge to double the number of poor children going to university by citing ministers saying it will “never” be achieved.

The Business Department believes it is impossible to hit the target for “established” universities because the grades demanded are too high and they do not want to grow the number of places.

The apparent admission that it was going to be impossible to double the number of poor children going to Oxford, Cambridge and other Russell Group universities was compared to “throwing the towel in” last night.

The revelations, contained in a document being carried by an unnamed official as they left Number 10 and walked to the Cabinet Office on Monday, will be an embarrassment for the government.

Notes for a Number 10 meeting caught on cameraCredit:
Steve Back

When the coalition raised tuition fees to a maximum of £9,000 a year it was argued that only those institutions who deserved to charge that much would increase prices. However many of the country’s leading universities picked the maximum amount.

The notes show that ministers are planning to publish a white paper on higher education alongside the Queen’s Speech next month which to “solve real problems of quality and regulation”.

It also raises questions about whether the government’s Higher Education Bill will “solve teaching quality” issues and may create “poor quality provision for marginal students”.

A section of memo - partly obscured by the hand carrying it – titled “what problems is the Bill trying to solve” appears to spell out previously unknown concerns about the higher education sector.

“Education across the spectrum – from some in the Russell group to courses … through FE [further education] colleges – do not offer the quality and intensity of teaching we expect for 9k,” the note reads.

It goes on to note that £9,000 is the same level of tuition fess given to some of the best funded institutions “which offer fare more intensive teaching” and are able to show improved outcomes.

“Education across the spectrum – from some in the Russell group to courses … through FE [further education] colleges – do not offer the quality and intensity of teaching we expect for 9k”

The memo goes on to say that “price competition hasn’t emerged” and appears to admit there is an incentive for poor universities to charge the top price despite a lack of quality.

The document also directly challenges the government’s pledge to double the proportion of disadvantaged young people entering higher education by 2020 from 2009 levels.

“[There is] a stated goal of doubling the proportion of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university by 2020,” the document appeared to read.

“BIS think we will never achieve this from the established sector alone (probably because of a combination of high entry requirements and reluctance to expand too fast) – and the extra boost in access could come from growth by alternative providers.”

BIS is the acronym for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills which has control of universities policy under the minister Jo Johnson, the London Mayor’s brother.

Notes for a Number 10 meeting caught on cameraCredit:
Steve Back

‘Alternative providers’ is a catch-all term that covers of higher education providers that tend not to take state funding but instead charge students tuition fees. Oxford, Cambridge and other Russell Group universities would not be included in this figure.

Critics pounced on the accidental revelation to say the Prime Minister had given up trying to increase the number of poor children going to top universities.

“The Government seem content to throw in the towel on efforts to widen participation in the existing higher education system, meaning that students from the least well-off families will be left behind.”

Nick Hillman, a Tory special adviser working on universities before the election and now director of the think tank Higher Education Policy Institute, expressed frustration at the news.

"The Prime Minister’s ambition is hardly the most challenging target ever, so it's surprising to see the towel thrown in so early. But there are some good alternative providers who reach people other institutions haven't. So there's nothing wrong in principle with expecting them to take a larger slice of a bigger cake."

A BIS spokesman said: “The rate of entry for disadvantaged students to university is at a record high and we are committed to ensuring that everyone with the potential has the opportunity to benefit from higher education, regardless of their background.”